The petitioner's counsel submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous. The Court accepted this submission and dismissed the writ petition as infructuous without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3302 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
WRIT PETITION NO: 30637 OF 2010
Between:
Smt. Ahmedi Begum, W/o. SyedMohiuddinAfzal Saheb, aged 75 years,Occ: Household, Ri/o. H. No.17 -2-625,Irr'lehdipura, Saidabad,Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONOENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lheConstitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiledtherewith,the High Court maybe pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or directionpreferablya writ in the nature of writ of mandamus declaringthe action of the respondentsin forcibly acquiring the land of thepetitioner in the premises H-No.17-2-625, Mehdipura' Saidabad, Hyderabad as being illegal, arbitrary,wrthoutjurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Land AcquisitronAct, 1894 and GHMCAct and alsoin violation of Art. 14 and 300-4 of the Constitutionof lndia and consequently direct the respondents not to acquire anyland fromthe said premises of the petitioner without following theprovisions of theSaidAct.
I ! i
l.A. NO: I OF m10(WPMP. NO: 39004 OF 2010
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to acquire the land in the premises H.No.17-2-625, tVlehdipura, Saidabad, Hyderabad without following the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, and without paying just and adequate compensation to the petitioner for the said acquisition, fending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AL! FAROOQ
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 3: SRI K.RAVTNDER REDDY, SC FOR GHMC
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LAND ACQUISIT|ON
The Court made the following: ORDER
l l \ I
THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.3O637 of 20to
ORDER:
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
cause in the writ petition does not survive and the writ
petition has become infructuous.
Recording the said submission, the Writ petition is
dismissed as infructuous.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ
petition, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
SD/-K.SREERAMA MU HY ASSISTANT RAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTIO OFFICER
To,
BSR GJP
t! , ia I E t I II
HIGH COURT
DATED: 0410112024
{ 9,9 STATE o
(
9
q
6)
x 0 l[\ 2t2<br>IJ .f,:
I cci
Df irPAJ
ORDER
WP.No.30637 of 2010
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION
AS INFRUCTUOUS
WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives given the petitioner's submission that the cause of action has ceased?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Ahmedi Begum
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition-GHMC
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No. IV, Town Planning Section
K. Sarath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
